So on pg 25 of Origins, Anderson describes Lyotard's take on postmodernity and how it results in undermining science as equal to "other forms of knowledge to which it had pretended [superiority] in modern times." I read this statement and am worried because Anderson seems to make an interesting word choice with his usage of 'pretend'. It seems that Anderson supports the notion of science's equality with all forms of knowledge, especially when he goes on to say that the basis of science rests on "two forms of grand narrative itself" (25).
Describing the foundation of science to be of grand narratives, and then defining the postmodern condition as the death of meta-narratives, he seems to really weaken the objective legitimacy that science possesses. Did anybody else see this as a subtle attack on science?
I do see this line of argument as an overt attack on the Natural Science discourse. However, some important insights stem from this critical attack of the Enlightenment science narrative. Certainly the two myths of Truth as God and continual, unending scientific progress are central (if unspoken) dogma in natural science today. The natural sciences work towards complete knowledge. Just think of the Unified Field Theory in Physics. While many admit that it may not necessarily be possible for one field theory can unite all physical forces in nature under the same terms, the allure of such a premise continues to inspire theoretical Physics. The several grand promises of decoding the human genome, such as genome-tailored medication or a better demarcation of nature and nature, are still way off in the future. Still, genome research is extremely well-funded because pre-eminent biologists continue to propagate these goals. These works generate popular excitement as they claim to approach a more perfect understanding of the universe.
Is the modernist spirit truly dead in the Natural Sciences?